Dry yeasts identified - your opinions please!

[Silver_Is_Money]

The only dry yeasts to appear genetically in the UK ale yeast category are Nottingham and S-04 and Lallemand's Vermont Ale.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The Suregork genetic study indicates that Muntons, S-33, Windsor, and London ESB are all kissing cousins stemming off of the same grandparent, and that S-33 and Muntons are sisters, and Windsor and London ESB are sisters. And that all of them are in the genetic category of bread yeasts. They are not in the category of English or UK Ale yeasts.

I've seen the diagram with them grouped together, didn't realise that they were categorised as bread yeasts. What does 'Mixed Origin' mean?

Having used the 4 yeasts, ESB and Munton's are very similar, and Windsor and S-33 are certainly similar, but the two pairs are distinctly different. Similarities, but clearly different on the ester front, ESB and Munton's being pretty neutral. I agree with Lallemand's descriptions of Windsor and ESB, which are pretty different.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The cousins/sisters are all slightly offset from the cluster of bread yeasts, but they stem from the same great/great grandparent.

They are indeed not identical twins. Merely cousins and sisters. Still plenty of genetic diversity potential there.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Off topic, but upon my urging, my wife used an aged package of Fermentis K-97 to make a loaf of bread a few months ago, and if you didn't know it, you would not notice any difference in the bread vs. bread from a standard bread yeast.

 

[ebbelwoi]

Off topic, but upon my urging, my wife used an aged package of Fermentis K-97 to make a loaf of bread a few months ago, and if you didn't know it, you would not notice any difference in the bread vs. bread from a standard bread yeast.

Did she do anything differently, compared to her typical recipe and process? Did she need to use more or less yeast, let it rise longer, etc.?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Did she do anything differently, compared to her typical recipe and process? Did she need to use more or less yeast, let it rise longer, etc.?

Nothing was done differently, since it was done via a bread machine. 2 Lb. loaf. 1 package of K-97.

 

[Hanglow]

I've used a few beer yeasts for bread and never really noted much difference. I've also used ADY unrehydrated in bread ( you are supposed to rehydrate it compared to IDY) and not noticed any difference and used osmotolerant yeast in bread that isn't supposed to like salt at all and not noticed any difference. I'm sure professional bakers who need repeatability etc probably would notice a difference, but for a typical home baker who can just leave a loaf sitting around for another hour to prove here or there it doesn't matter much.

I finally got a lot of Allinsons bread yeast from the supermarket so next beer I'm brewing I'm going to try it out at last in a 4l batch to satisfy my curiosity on how it performs.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Windsor and Nottingham is a well trodden path as a yeast blend. English breweries generally use blends, and Notty and Windsor are said to have come from the same multi-strain. It wouldn't really be a risk to put them together, it would be a smart move, perhaps.

Well - the few family brewers that are left tend to use multistrains, although many cleaned them up to a greater or lesser extent in the 1970s. But "most" British breweries tend to just buy in yeast from outside, although some like Dark Star are noted for blending dry yeast. Pitching Windsor followed by Notty 48h later is a common option among homebrewers though.

I agree about Muunton's Premium being Notty, but it is slightly different IMO. I suspect it is Nottingham produced in a different set-up than Lallemand. But I could be wrong. I always thought Munton's produced their own yeast,

The story I heard is that at one point Munton/Gervin were contracted by Lallemand to produce some of their yeasts whilst Lallemand were rebuilding their factory, and soon afterwards they started producing what we now know as GV12/Wilko/Premium. Lallemand can't really complain given how many strains they've nicked though

The Suregork genetic study indicates that Muntons, S-33, Windsor, and London ESB are all kissing cousins stemming off of the same grandparent, and that S-33 and Muntons are sisters, and Windsor and London ESB are sisters. And that all of them stem from the genetic category/cluster of bread yeasts. They are not in the category of English or UK Ale yeasts.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the detail of those kinds of family trees, they're a little bit arbitrary to some extent. It's meaningful to say that they're all part of the same family, but I wouldn't put too much reliance on "these are sisters but these are cousins" kind of statements.

And most of the mixed group are not bread yeasts - they're a mishmash of brewing yeasts, distilling yeasts and yes, a couple of strains now sold commercially as bread yeasts. But the whole concept of "bread yeast" is a relatively recent one - historically brewing was a convenient way to grow up yeast for baking. In fact there was a court case in Bavaria in 1500 or so, where the bakers complained that the brewers had changed their yeast to one suited to the newfangled beer from Bohemia and it was no good, which sounds like the introduction of lager yeast to Bavaria as lager yeast doesn't work so well in bread.

The US seems to have been unlucky in that its main commercial bread yeast sounds like it's not much good for brewing, whereas in Europe things are rather better - I've used the Allinson's yeast for beer and it worked quite well (and I'm just about to pitch some again as it happens).

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Well - the few family brewers that are left tend to use multistrains, although many cleaned them up to a greater or lesser extent in the 1970s. But "most" British breweries tend to just buy in yeast from outside, although some like Dark Star are noted for blending dry yeast. Pitching Windsor followed by Notty 48h later is a common option among homebrewers though.

Yes I doubt there are a huge number of the original multi-strain brewers left. In Manchester we have Holts, JW Lees and Hydes. JW Lees yeast found it's way to Cloudwater in the early CW days. Holts yeast was used by James Kemp at a couple of his breweries. Hydes I don't know, I live near the old brewery but did they take their yeast with them? Probably. all the new breweries are using dry, White Labs or Wyeast or one of the others. CW didn't use the Lallemeand NE for long ,it was using A38 a year ago when I visited, said it works best for them on their system for the results they want. They gave me two vials which made some nice beer.

The story I heard is that at one point Munton/Gervin were contracted by Lallemand to produce some of their yeasts whilst Lallemand were rebuilding their factory, and soon afterwards they started producing what we now know as GV12/Wilko/Premium. Lallemand can't really complain given how many strains they've nicked though

So Munton's still produce yeast. I only learnt about the Chinese Angel yeast this last week, I wonder if MJ buy any of theirs?

And most of the mixed group are not bread yeasts - they're a mishmash of brewing yeasts, distilling yeasts and yes, a couple of strains now sold commercially as bread yeasts. But the whole concept of "bread yeast" is a relatively recent one - historically brewing was a convenient way to grow up yeast for baking. In fact there was a court case in Bavaria in 1500 or so, where the bakers complained that the brewers had changed their yeast to one suited to the newfangled beer from Bohemia and it was no good, which sounds like the introduction of lager yeast to Bavaria as lager yeast doesn't work so well in bread.

Does mixed mean the DNA of each strain has elements of different historic yeasts, or that the mixed group is just a hotch potch of different strains that don't fit the main groups?

The US seems to have been unlucky in that its main commercial bread yeast sounds like it's not much good for brewing, whereas in Europe things are rather better - I've used the Allinson's yeast for beer and it worked quite well (and I'm just about to pitch some again as it happens).

I shall have to give Allinson's a whirl. Phenolic?

 

[frankvw]

Frank, many thanks for your really detailed response, much appreciated. Some really helpful stuff in there. Some stuff I don't agree with too.

Good. Constructive disagreement leads to further understanding, so disagree away!

M36 is different from any of the Lallemand or Fermentis yeasts.

M36 was changed from M72 Burton Union at the same time MJ changed several other yeasts; a change that just happened to coincide exactly with Lallemand's revamping of their product range.

Until Suregork runs all MJ yeasts through the DNA sequencer, all we have to go by are the specs and blurbs published by the suppliers of the various yeasts, our knowledge of the industry and our own brewing experiences.

The latest version of the ever-changing blurb published by MJ currently describes M36 as "A top fermenting ale yeast suitable for a wide variety of hoppy and distinctive style beers [which] produces light, delicate fruity esters and helps to develop malt character. Suitable for both English and American Pale Ales, Extra Special Bitters, Golden Ales and more." On the basis of that it might even be plain old US-05. How would you say it compares to that?

It's also different from Mauribrew ale

Mauri 514 (which I take it you are referring to) is, to all intents and purposes, a robust EDME variety.

I've used the English yeasts from all of those enough to know. And the many people here in England who have used them would agree about M36, it's a common forum discussion as to what M36 could be. It's either made specially for them, or it's from another company, or it's a blend, IMO.

I'm 100% convinced it is NOT specially made for them and I seriously doubt it is a blend. Which leaves repackaging.

Windsor and Nottingham is a well trodden path as a yeast blend. English breweries generally use blends, and Notty and Windsor are said to have come from the same multi-strain. It wouldn't really be a risk to put them together, it would be a smart move, perhaps. For one time use.

Dual pitching in a brewery is different from dual pitching in a home brewing scenario. Incidentally, the warning not to crop and reuse MJ yeasts only appeared on the first version(s) of the packaging and has since been removed (based on the latest ones I've seen).

I have used ESB and M36 and they are not the same.

OK. I'll gladly accept that on the basis of your experience. Which means that based on current (!) product info US-05 is actually the least unlikely candidate. What's your opinion on how these two compare?

I would say Munton's Standard yeast could be ESB, it is certainly very similar.

I believe that is actually Mauri 514.

It's not like S-33.

OK. Would you classify it as EDME or as Whitbread?

I agree about Muunton's Premium being Notty, but it is slightly different IMO. I suspect it is Nottingham produced in a different set-up than Lallemand. But I could be wrong.

Muntons doesn't have a yeast production lab, so if this is not being propagated by Lallemand I'm not sure where. However, also keep in mind that a packet of Muntons Premium contains (off the top of my head) 6 grams and a packet of Notties contains 12 grams. That's a big difference in pitching rate. Have you compared 2 packets of Muntons with 1 packet of Notties to eliminate that? Differences in packaging may also lead to different aging; Lallemand packs in vacuum thick-walled barrier packets; Muntons in thin-walled barrier packets filled with either nitrogen or air, which allows for higher moisture levels.

I always thought Munton's produced their own yeast, but maybe it is just malts they do. It's certainly a very specialist activity.

Nope, the don't produce their own yeasts.

The MJ kits use different style specific yeasts, as far as I am awar.e MB ale may feature in some of the cheap kits, feasibly.

MJ kit yeast is also Mauri 514, but in 5 gram packets.

MB ale may feature in some of the cheap kits, feasibly. I don't know the Brewferm yeasts well enough to comment on them matching with Mauri strains, I does seem like a neat fit.

Brewferm is 100% repackaged Mauri; all three varieties.

Cheers!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Good. Constructive disagreement leads to further understanding, so disagree away!

Absolutely agree. Just healthy debate.

M36 was changed from M72 Burton Union at the same time MJ changed several other yeasts; a change that just happened to coincide exactly with Lallemand's revamping of their product range. The latest version of the ever-changing blurb published by MJ currently describes M36 as "A top fermenting ale yeast suitable for a wide variety of hoppy and distinctive style beers [which] produces light, delicate fruity esters and helps to develop malt character. Suitable for both English and American Pale Ales, Extra Special Bitters, Golden Ales and more." On the basis of that it might even be plain old US-05. How would you say it compares to that? Mauri 514 (which I take it you are referring to) is, to all intents and purposes, a robust EDME variety. I'm 100% convinced it is NOT specially made for them and I seriously doubt it is a blend. Which leaves repackaging.

The change of the MJ range coinciding with the Lallemand changes is certainly significant. But it doesn't match any of the Lallemand yeasts, so how did the Lallemand changes affect M36? Which Lallemand yeasts changed or appeared? It has more esters than Nottingham. It attenuates more than Windsor, and floccs better. It is not like US-05 either. Mauri 514 would be the closest to M36 that I've used, but I got consistently higher attenuation with 514. And it was cleaner, ester wise. I haven't used another dry yeast like M36.

Dual pitching in a brewery is different from dual pitching in a home brewing scenario. Incidentally, the warning not to crop and reuse MJ yeasts only appeared on the first version(s) of the packaging and has since been removed (based on the latest ones I've seen).

No argument there, though pitching Windsor/Notty 50/50 or 75/25 at the start of a homebrew batch is a tried and tested method. I never used M79 but I saw a lot of reviews of it being stubborn to clear, and getting out of control ester wise. Sounds a bit like Windsor. Maybe theyWent from 75/25 to 50/50/! Just a wild guess of course, but it sort of explains M36 that any other explanation I can think of. And, in fact, there are a number of MJ yeasts that is difficult to match against any of the Lalbrew or Fermentis yeasts. M29 is different from Belle Saison and I think pre-dates BE-134, and M44? It seems a bit kolschy to me, going a bit left field.

I got an email from the Lallemand global tech advisor today which said all their yeasts are single strain, incidentally. Which I assumed was the case. He recommended pitching Belle Saison 24 hours after Nottingham for a less clovy saison.

OK. I'll gladly accept that on the basis of your experience. Which means that based on current (!) product info US-05 is actually the least unlikely candidate. What's your opinion on how these two compare?

I think US-05 is Chico and is different from any of the English strains. I think London ESB and Munton's Standard are similar enough to possibly be the same. I think S-33 and Windsor are similar enough to be the same strain, made in different production plants.

OK. Would you classify it as EDME or as Whitbread?

I'm not sure that is a clear cut question. Whitbread is a family of English yeasts that spread widely through British breweries. I don't know which dry yeasts are descendents of Whitbread, if any. Edme presumably gave rise to either ESB/Munton's or S-33/Windsor. Anyway, I don't know whether it is Edme or Whitbread, or something else, to answer your question.

Muntons doesn't have a yeast production lab, so if this is not being propagated by Lallemand I'm not sure where. However, also keep in mind that a packet of Muntons Premium contains (off the top of my head) 6 grams and a packet of Notties contains 12 grams. That's a big difference in pitching rate. Have you compared 2 packets of Muntons with 1 packet of Notties to eliminate that? Differences in packaging may also lead to different aging; Lallemand packs in vacuum thick-walled barrier packets; Muntons in thin-walled barrier packets filled with either nitrogen or air, which allows for higher moisture levels.

I thought Northern Brewer implied that Munton's does produce yeast. Maybe Munton's yeast production is outsourced. But yes, yeast condition may affect beer outcome, which could explain it. I make 10-12 litre batches so I only pitch half packets anyway, and I wouldn't pitch a 6g pack in a full size batch. I suspect there is at least one place in Europe where dry yeast is 'cloned'. Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany. They obviously now have Lalbrew kveik in their range, which is presumably a repack, so I expect others are repacks too. Maybe cloning means repackaging, in this instance. But I think the CML cheaper range is interesting, it's really cheap, and not as good as MJ, Lalbrew or Fermentis stuff IMO. It doesn't match up, so what is it?

MJ kit yeast is also Mauri 514, but in 5 gram packets.

That wouldn't surprise me, in some of the cheaper kits that suit a plain ale yeast, at least. The craft series kits have the craft series yeasts of course.

Brewferm is 100% repackaged Mauri; all three varieties.

Cool thanks. Can you explain how you know that 100%?


Good banter, cheers! It's about 85 degrees and clear blue skies here in Manchester UK today. No cloud, no rain. The world is changing in all sorts of ways.

 

[mediant]

Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany. They obviously now have Lalbrew kveik in their range, which is presumably a repack, so I expect others are repacks too. Maybe cloning means repackaging, in this instance. But I think the CML cheaper range is interesting, it's really cheap, and not as good as MJ, Lalbrew or Fermentis stuff IMO. It doesn't match up, so what is it?

I would take anything coming from these guys with a big grain of salt.
They pretend to be a contract brewery belonging to some multi-national company and whatnot...
If you check their business info on eBay, the contact details (both the phone number and the email) actually belong to The Doorstep Handyman (Glasgow), where their "master brewer" Steven apparently "loves his tiling.".
They even left feedback on eBay to some Chinese supplier for exactly the same bags they sell their yeast in - somehow I doubt they are "packed in sterile conditions" for real...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I would take anything coming from these guys with a big grain of salt.
They pretend to be a contract brewery belonging to some multi-national company and whatnot...
If you check their business info on eBay, the contact details (both the phone number and the email) actually belong to The Doorstep Handyman (Glasgow), where their "master brewer" Steven apparently "loves his tiling.".
They even left feedback on eBay to some Chinese supplier for exactly the same bags they sell their yeast in - somehow I doubt they are "packed in sterile conditions" for real...

Ha ha. Thanks, that explains a fair bit. Not really surprising.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Yes I doubt there are a huge number of the original multi-strain brewers left. In Manchester we have Holts, JW Lees and Hydes. JW Lees yeast found it's way to Cloudwater in the early CW days. Holts yeast was used by James Kemp at a couple of his breweries. Hydes I don't know, I live near the old brewery but did they take their yeast with them? Probably. all the new breweries are using dry, White Labs or Wyeast or one of the others. CW didn't use the Lallemeand NE for long ,it was using A38 a year ago when I visited, said it works best for them on their system for the results they want. They gave me two vials which made some nice beer.

They first used the Lees multistrain in Three’s Company, a 2016 collab with Lees and Magic Rock and then in DIPA v7 and in NW DIPA, but then kinda lost interest. They went through a phase of switching between all sorts, various flavours of Conan among others. Must admit I don't keep track of them in the way that I used to, I find them beers to admire rather than enjoy.

Does mixed mean the DNA of each strain has elements of different historic yeasts, or that the mixed group is just a hotch potch of different strains that don't fit the main groups?

It's something that's not entirely clear although messing around with some genome analysis tools could tell you. AFAICT they're "mixed" because they get used for different purposes, rather than displaying genome mixing in the way that eg hefe yeasts have mixed genomes (essentially they're kolsch yeasts with a bit of saison DNA inserted)

I shall have to give Allinson's a whirl. Phenolic?

Not got my notes to hand but memory says it's not unlike S-04.

M29 is different from Belle Saison and I think pre-dates BE-134, and M44? It seems a bit kolschy to me, going a bit left field.

You're wrong on that one, M29 is "beautiful". (pers comm)

I got an email from the Lallemand global tech advisor today which said all their yeasts are single strain, incidentally.

Hmm - they keep saying that but microbiology suggests that, at least 5+ years ago, that may not have been the case...

I think S-33 and Windsor are similar enough to be the same strain, made in different production plants.

No such thing as the same strain, unless you're picking from exactly the same original vials.

Crossmyloof told me some of their yeasts are cloned. They also have yeasts called Midland, Four and Five. CML told me these have similar performance to their obvious namesakes. They also told me their yeasts come from a company in Germany.

Those are fairly recent arrivals though, no? CML have obviously found their niche piling high and selling cheap, so I'd expect them to... take the economical option at all stages. I suspect they started off repacking bricks, then for a while they were obviously just white labelling SPL yeast (ie the MJ range), then things changed and allegedly went to Germany which coincided with them getting some "different" European yeasts. One suggestion is that they're getting most of their stuff from Brauwerkstatt e.V. 53773 Hennef now, but I don't know.

 

[kmarkstevens]

There is a great podcast with Fritz Maytag, who revitalized Anchor Brewing and Anchor Steam. Anyhoo, at 4-5 minutes into the podcast, he talks about how he sourced non-dried Red Star yeast to brew Anchor Steam back in the 1960's. Silly me, I thought Anchor had some special ancient lager yeast that adapted to ale temperatures and brewing techniques from the 1800's. Nope, Fritz sourced from other local brewers like Lucky Lager, and was fed up with doing that when he was advised that the Red Star yeast, before it was dried, would make good beer.

What additional strains are in the bread/ale category? I have some sourdough to rise....

 

[duncan_disorderly]

It's something that's not entirely clear although messing around with some genome analysis tools could tell you. AFAICT they're "mixed" because they get used for different purposes, rather than displaying genome mixing in the way that eg hefe yeasts have mixed genomes (essentially they're kolsch yeasts with a bit of saison DNA inserted)

That makes sense.

You're wrong on that one, M29 is "beautiful". (pers comm)

With whom? I've had lower attenuation with M29 the couple of times i used it. Possibly the same pack, can't remember. I'm not familiar enough to have a strong opinion, I just decided it must be different at the time.

Hmm - they keep saying that but microbiology suggests that, at least 5+ years ago, that may not have been the case...

Interesting. Why would Lallemand deny it? What is there to lose?

No such thing as the same strain, unless you're picking from exactly the same original vials.

Ok. What's the right word then?!

Those are fairly recent arrivals though, no? CML have obviously found their niche piling high and selling cheap, so I'd expect them to... take the economical option at all stages. I suspect they started off repacking bricks, then for a while they were obviously just white labelling SPL yeast (ie the MJ range), then things changed and allegedly went to Germany which coincided with them getting some "different" European yeasts. One suggestion is that they're getting most of their stuff from Brauwerkstatt e.V. 53773 Hennef now, but I don't know.

I only used the kolsch and the US Pale in the early range. The US Pale was unlike anything in the MJ range and I thought it was poor quality. Used it three times and regretted it.

WRT the MJ range, on the comments section in the Ed's Blog article, is this:

"on the other hand mangroves jack replied and their yeast is cerevisiae and they have blends for some of their products."

And this:

qq7 January 2018 at 19:16
70:30 seems too much to be accidental though. Apparently Mangrove Jack M76 Bavarian Lager is also a mix.

So we seem to have there some evidence for MJ blending yeasts, which is just a hunch I've had based on M36 in particular.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The Ed's Blog piece also had a link to an earlier blog article:

http://edsbeer.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-dried-yeast-what-they-claim-to-be.html
I went to a SIBA meeting on Wednesday and a bloke from Surebrew gave a brief but interesting talk. But it was when he was asked about dried yeasts that it got really interesting. He said Safale 04 is Whitbread B, something I'd previously seen Graham Wheeler (PBUH) say over at Jim's; US 05 is apparently composed of several strains, and Nottingham Ale yeast is in fact a mix containing 70% lager yeast. I'm quite astonished by this last point, and it also seems to me that it should be relatively easy to investigate if it's correct. If I remember rightly lager yeast can ferment melibiose whereas ale yeast cannot, and ale yeast is able to grown at 42 degrees C whereas lager yeast cannot. I'll have to check the details, and see what we've got a work, but this is one I'd really like to look into...


This seems to be the source of some of the ideas about dry yeasts. But since then, I think we have discovered that S-04 is not Whitbread. I also think the US-05 five strain thing sounds like nonsense? And Ed's tests on Nottingham apparently showed that the two strains he found in it were not lager strains.

So what do we really know about Nottingham, or the dry multi-strains notion? Does Nottingham have two strains, as Ed seemed to find, in 2014? Or not, as Lallemand tell us, I wonder?

 

[bierhaus15]

S-04 is absolutely a Whitbread B derivative. There has never been any doubt about that. Here's the sales info:

"S-04 -This strain comes from Whitbread Brewing Co., and ferments crisp, slightly tart."

 

[Northern_Brewer]

With whom? I've had lower attenuation with M29 the couple of times i used it. Possibly the same pack, can't remember. I'm not familiar enough to have a strong opinion, I just decided it must be different at the time.

Without giving away any confidences - someone who would know. So either you're seeing natural variability in fermentation, or a negative effect from going though Ellesmere Port. If the latter then I'd sympathise...

Ok. What's the right word then?!

Whatever you like, just don't give the impression that yeast not from the same culture are the same as they're not. Microbiology people get fairly picky about that kind of thing, which is why eg 34/70 is treated as a separate strain from W34, even though it was an isolate (in 1970) from the "W34" used at Weihenstephan for about 10 years. In that kind of time you will see mutations and genetic drift.

Interesting. Why would Lallemand deny it? What is there to lose?

All food producers like to sell themselves on "purity", but yeast producers have a particular interest in it after Left Hand sued White Labs in 2017 for the $m's of business lost to bottle bombs allegedly caused by STA1 contaminants in WLP090. There were also dark rumours going round Bermondsey of contamination in US-05 at around the same time. Certainly Chris Giles of Surebrew knows what he's doing, so if he says he found multiple strains back in the early teens I'd believe him. Whereas the yeast companies do have business to lose and possible lawsuits to fight if they admit that their yeast are not to spec. So it's quite possible that various commercial yeasts were not pure cultures a few years ago, whether through contamination or natural mutation, but they've now been cleaned up.

It would be easy enough to tell either way, just plate them out on WLN, maybe do some colony PCR.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

"S-04 -This strain comes from Whitbread Brewing Co., and ferments crisp, slightly tart."

That doesn't mean it's necessarily the original Whitbread B - Whitbread ran one of the biggest yeast libraries in the world as well as using multiple production strains in multiple breweries, they took over many local breweries many of which had "local" versions of yeasts from head office.

Until we get sequence of NCYC 1026 which for these purposes can be regarded as the canonical Whitbread B, then we won't know for sure.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

S-04 is absolutely a Whitbread B derivative. There has never been any doubt about that. Here's the sales info:

"S-04 -This strain comes from Whitbread Brewing Co., and ferments crisp, slightly tart."

Ok that sounds definitive, thanks, but hasn't DNA testing suggested it's something else? I think it was lose to WLP006. Is that a Whitbread derivative?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Whatever you like, just don't give the impression that yeast not from the same culture are the same as they're not. Microbiology people get fairly picky about that kind of thing, which is why eg 34/70 is treated as a separate strain from W34, even though it was an isolate (in 1970) from the "W34" used at Weihenstephan for about 10 years. In that kind of time you will see mutations and genetic drift.

Yeah I understand. I just think there should be a word for all yeasts that are genetically very similar, probably come from a particular beer or brewery or something, but have very slight variations. Maybe there is a word.

All food producers like to sell themselves on "purity", but yeast producers have a particular interest in it after Left Hand sued White Labs in 2017 for the $m's of business lost to bottle bombs allegedly caused by STA1 contaminants in WLP090. There were also dark rumours going round Bermondsey of contamination in US-05 at around the same time. Certainly Chris Giles of Surebrew knows what he's doing, so if he says he found multiple strains back in the early teens I'd believe him. Whereas the yeast companies do have business to lose and possible lawsuits to fight if they admit that their yeast are not to spec. So it's quite possible that various commercial yeasts were not pure cultures a few years ago, whether through contamination or natural mutation, but they've now been cleaned up.

I'm not sure that argument works. There's a difference between a contaminant that the producer doesn't intend to be there, and a fixed number of 'strains' that are intended to be there, with known and explained behaviours. Breweries buy and use diastatic strains now and avoid disasters with them. If Lallemand were to deliberately combine 2 or 3 strains to produce a product that provided a particular kind of result, like M36 does for example, and explained that on the tin, and how to use that blend correctly to achieve full attenuation etc, then I don't think a lawsuit would occur. There's a no reason why dry yeasts can't be blends or why they must all be single strain, I reckon. And it sounds like MJ do sell blends that contain more than one strain, if the reply from MJ that I mentioned above isn't a made up thing.

 

[bierhaus15]

That doesn't mean it's necessarily the original Whitbread B - Whitbread ran one of the biggest yeast libraries in the world as well as using multiple production strains in multiple breweries, they took over many local breweries many of which had "local" versions of yeasts from head office.

Until we get sequence of NCYC 1026 which for these purposes can be regarded as the canonical Whitbread B, then we won't know for sure.

Lol. Ok, it might not be the "canonical" Whitbread B..... just the dry version of Whitbread B. Any other hairs worth splitting here?

 

[Sebastian Weetabix]

I knew there were "Canons" of the Catholic Church.
Is there a Yeast Cathedral to get the Canonical Yeasts?

 

[ncbrewer]

Unfortunately Lallemand seems to be the only yeast supplier providing diastaticus information at this time (neither Lallemand nor Mangrove Jack specify it as part of their regular product data) so the diastaticus classification would indeed be helpful in identifying yeasts, if only everyone would supply complete and conclusive product data...

I have found diastaticus information on the Fermentis and Lallemand websites. Fermentis has it on Tool #3. For Lallemand, go to the main product page and click " Download LalBrew® Abbaye Technical Data Sheet" This might be new.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Some pages of the Fermentis site appear be broken on some versions of Safari.

Beer fermentation tips and tricks | only for brewers is a good link to get to "Tool #3".

 

[Vale71]

Yeah I understand. I just think there should be a word for all yeasts that are genetically very similar, probably come from a particular beer or brewery or something, but have very slight variations. Maybe there is a word.

There is and the word is "clade". Just substitute "brewery" with "ancestor".

 

[duncan_disorderly]

There is and the word is "clade". Just substitute "brewery" with "ancestor".

I think it's not used enough!

 

[ebbelwoi]

Exchanged a few emails with a Lallemand rep yesterday. He was kind enough to confirm two things I'd read on hobbybrauer.de:

Diamond is a Frohberg strain, Doemens 308 to be specific.
Munich Classic is the Andechs strain.

I had already read about the Diamond-308 connection in a Reddit post by Andreas Krennmair (I believe he calls it the dry version of WY2308), and elsewhere on hobbybrauer. I was a bit surprised about the MC-Andechs connection, though, as I'd read quite a few posts claiming that Munich Classic was the dry equivalent of WLP300/WY3068/W68. The interesting part about that comes courtesy of this thread, in which the Weihenstephan yeast bank recommends W175 (WLP351/WY3638) to a customer who's looking for something similar to what Kloster Andechs uses.

 

[thehaze]

Exchanged a few emails with a Lallemand rep yesterday. He was kind enough to confirm two things I'd read on hobbybrauer.de:

Diamond is a Frohberg strain, Doemens 308 to be specific.
Munich Classic is the Andechs strain.

I had already read about the Diamond-308 connection in a Reddit post by Andreas Krennmair (I believe he calls it the dry version of WY2308), and elsewhere on hobbybrauer. I was a bit surprised about the MC-Andechs connection, though, as I'd read quite a few posts claiming that Munich Classic was the dry equivalent of WLP300/WY3068/W68. The interesting part about that comes courtesy of this thread, in which the Weihenstephan yeast bank recommends W175 (WLP351/WY3638) to a customer who's looking for something similar to what Kloster Andechs uses.

So Munich Classic is the Andechs strain or close to it then. I've found a few threads on the web suggesting it might be a Weihenstephaner derivative.